I suspect these events are far more for the people throwing the sand than the people having sand thrown at them.

Ha, nice. I mean, if they were *actually* breaking ground in any meaningful way whatsoever, it wouldn't be so absurd. Given the tremendous amount of digging any project requires, it seems like it would be easy enough to find a place where they could actually remove some dirt that needs to be removed. Sure, one can argue that the earth is nearly frozen right now, but wasting fuel to heat the ground first would still be less ridiculous than carting in sand for them to throw. Ten spades of actual dirt would be an insignificant contribution to the project, but this sand actually has to be carted in and then carted out again, and they're literally sticking shovels in a sand pile. It's kind of embarrassing.

I tend to agree. My hope, though, is that it gets extended to downtown once the Orange Line is up and running, reducing the capital costs down to just buying additional buses (and maybe inline stations at 66th and/or Portland).

I mean, the name "Arterial Bus Rapid Transit" is inaccurate at best and pretty baldly misleading IMO. It has few of the characteristics of BRT, and BRT itself is only really passable as rapid transit when it meets a set of very high standards that we've never committed to in Minnesota. IMO the better comparison is that it's a really awesome replacement for local bus service and the standard level of service we should have on our top-tier urban bus routes; comparing it to rapid transit is muddying the waters.

Among people like us who pay a lot of attention to transit, sure, but politically this comparison happens all the time. The distinction between ABRT and BRT is nonexistent outside of Metro Transit and, let's say, Metro Transit Enthusiasts. It only takes a couple minutes on the Strib website to find comments, letters, articles, editorials, and even state legislators comparing mixed-traffic bus service to actual rapid transit. Just look at this article, where the headline refers to the A Line as "rapid bus service" and which goes out of its way to make cost comparisons to SWLRT. And like you said, we have a pisswater excuse in our own system reinforcing the false comparison.

Well, for better or for worse, Rapid Bus is Metro Transit's branding for the letter lines, though they aren't officially called aBRT anymore.

On the other end, I don't think it's totally unreasonable to put the Orange Line and Gold Line in the same category as the LRT lines from a branding perspective. They'll occasionally get tied up in general traffic, sure, but so do the Blue and Green Lines.

Well, for better or for worse, Rapid Bus is Metro Transit's branding for the letter lines, though they aren't officially called aBRT anymore.

On the other end, I don't think it's totally unreasonable to put the Orange Line and Gold Line in the same category as the LRT lines from a branding perspective. They'll occasionally get tied up in general traffic, sure, but so do the Blue and Green Lines.

Gold Line, at least, I agree on. That's mostly dedicated transit infrastructure (though I do have some concerns that the non-dedicated part is potentially the most crucial part) with similar station configurations and service levels.

Orange Line is another Red Line in terms of planning and implementation. It won't be a disaster in the same way, because lots of people actually use buses on 35W, and because the dedicated downtown ramp alone is a big need. But it's a highway project first that kinda-sorta tacked on some secondary transit usage to get a color from Metro Transit. Like the Red Line, it is not consistent with the level of service on the LRT lines and would not be classified as BRT by the standards manual.

Well, for better or for worse, Rapid Bus is Metro Transit's branding for the letter lines, though they aren't officially called aBRT anymore.

On the other end, I don't think it's totally unreasonable to put the Orange Line and Gold Line in the same category as the LRT lines from a branding perspective. They'll occasionally get tied up in general traffic, sure, but so do the Blue and Green Lines.

Gold Line, at least, I agree on. That's mostly dedicated transit infrastructure (though I do have some concerns that the non-dedicated part is potentially the most crucial part) with similar station configurations and service levels.

Orange Line is another Red Line in terms of planning and implementation. It won't be a disaster in the same way, because lots of people actually use buses on 35W, and because the dedicated downtown ramp alone is a big need. But it's a highway project first that kinda-sorta tacked on some secondary transit usage to get a color from Metro Transit. Like the Red Line, it is not consistent with the level of service on the LRT lines and would not be classified as BRT by the standards manual.

I think the Orange Line is running every 10 minutes for most of the day. Making Level of Service just as high as Blue/Green.

Well, for better or for worse, Rapid Bus is Metro Transit's branding for the letter lines, though they aren't officially called aBRT anymore.

On the other end, I don't think it's totally unreasonable to put the Orange Line and Gold Line in the same category as the LRT lines from a branding perspective. They'll occasionally get tied up in general traffic, sure, but so do the Blue and Green Lines.

Gold Line, at least, I agree on. That's mostly dedicated transit infrastructure (though I do have some concerns that the non-dedicated part is potentially the most crucial part) with similar station configurations and service levels.

Orange Line is another Red Line in terms of planning and implementation. It won't be a disaster in the same way, because lots of people actually use buses on 35W, and because the dedicated downtown ramp alone is a big need. But it's a highway project first that kinda-sorta tacked on some secondary transit usage to get a color from Metro Transit. Like the Red Line, it is not consistent with the level of service on the LRT lines and would not be classified as BRT by the standards manual.

I think the Orange Line is running every 10 minutes for most of the day. Making Level of Service just as high as Blue/Green.

My bad it is 10 mins during rush hours, and 15 mins the rest of the day. Which is pretty good in my opinion. Since there are places where LRT only has 15 min frequencies.

Well, for better or for worse, Rapid Bus is Metro Transit's branding for the letter lines, though they aren't officially called aBRT anymore.

On the other end, I don't think it's totally unreasonable to put the Orange Line and Gold Line in the same category as the LRT lines from a branding perspective. They'll occasionally get tied up in general traffic, sure, but so do the Blue and Green Lines.

Gold Line, at least, I agree on. That's mostly dedicated transit infrastructure (though I do have some concerns that the non-dedicated part is potentially the most crucial part) with similar station configurations and service levels.

Orange Line is another Red Line in terms of planning and implementation. It won't be a disaster in the same way, because lots of people actually use buses on 35W, and because the dedicated downtown ramp alone is a big need. But it's a highway project first that kinda-sorta tacked on some secondary transit usage to get a color from Metro Transit. Like the Red Line, it is not consistent with the level of service on the LRT lines and would not be classified as BRT by the standards manual.

I think the Orange Line is running every 10 minutes for most of the day. Making Level of Service just as high as Blue/Green.

Sorry, "level of service" was a bad choice of terminology because it means something specific and you're right that they're planning high frequency. But it's not rapid-transit-like in that it runs in mixed traffic, weaves between lanes, has stops 2 miles apart in urban areas, and all kinds of other things that violate both the international definition of BRT and the expectations LRT riders would have for METRO-style transit. It's not at all the same kind of transit, nor the same planning process, as the Gold Line.

Gold Line, at least, I agree on. That's mostly dedicated transit infrastructure (though I do have some concerns that the non-dedicated part is potentially the most crucial part) with similar station configurations and service levels.

Orange Line is another Red Line in terms of planning and implementation. It won't be a disaster in the same way, because lots of people actually use buses on 35W, and because the dedicated downtown ramp alone is a big need. But it's a highway project first that kinda-sorta tacked on some secondary transit usage to get a color from Metro Transit. Like the Red Line, it is not consistent with the level of service on the LRT lines and would not be classified as BRT by the standards manual.

I think the Orange Line is running every 10 minutes for most of the day. Making Level of Service just as high as Blue/Green.

Sorry, "level of service" was a bad choice of terminology because it means something specific and you're right that they're planning high frequency. But it's not rapid-transit-like in that it runs in mixed traffic, weaves between lanes, has stops 2 miles apart in urban areas, and all kinds of other things that violate both the international definition of BRT and the expectations LRT riders would have for METRO-style transit. It's not at all the same kind of transit, nor the same planning process, as the Gold Line.

I think MNDOT needs to raise the price of MNPass lane on 35W, this would make sure that buses are getting better priority in the lane.

Also isn't McGlaughlin kind of ambivalent to a little hostile to the concept of rapid bus?

Sure, he's a big LRT booster, but I don't think I've seen anything to indicate he's opposed to BRT. Link?

He refused to pay for aBRT with CTIB money. People hoped that would change with Hennepin County recently doubling the sales tax. But no, the refusal to fund aBRT continues. Under McLaughlin’s orders aBRT goes to the back of the line after SWLRT, BLRT, Hennepin’s share of Riverview, and the operating costs for all of the above. Based on cost effectiveness per rider and the relative quickness with which these lines can be planned and opened, aBRT should be at the FRONT of the funding queue, not stuck begging for scraps from the legislature.

Do we know if the C Line will open in March or June yet? (It has to be one of those as it must coordinate with a quarterly service "pick"). The A Line opened in June 2016 (after initially being planned to open in Dec. 2015).

The website says: "Major construction on Penn Avenue is complete. There is ongoing construction activity on C Line stations that may require temporary lane restrictions or sidewalk detours through the Spring of 2019." Based on the A Line opening, June seems a more likely bet than March, if there will be intermittent lane closures/restrictions in early spring.

twincitizen wrote:Do we know if the C Line will open in March or June yet? (It has to be one of those as it must coordinate with a quarterly service "pick"). The A Line opened in June 2016 (after initially being planned to open in Dec. 2015).

The website says: "Major construction on Penn Avenue is complete. There is ongoing construction activity on C Line stations that may require temporary lane restrictions or sidewalk detours through the Spring of 2019." Based on the A Line opening, June seems a more likely bet than March, if there will be intermittent lane closures/restrictions in early spring.